All Headlines >>
Ms Gurrin faced two charges, the first being that she had issued prescriptions for Roaccutane tables, indicating they were for the treatment of an animal when they were in fact for a human.
The second charge was that Dr Gurrin’s conduct in relation to the first charge was dishonest and/or misleading, and took place in circumstances where Dr Gurrin was not professionally qualified to write a prescription for a human.
Ms Gurrin admitted the allegation in its entirety and the Committee therefore found it proved.
The College submitted that Dr Gurrin breached fundamental tenets of the Code of Professional Conduct and acted dishonestly and, as such, that the admitted facts amounted to disgraceful conduct.
The Committee accepted that Dr Gurrin’s conduct involved dishonesty, but took into account the context: that Dr Gurrin was seeking to help in continuing a course of medication that she understood to have been properly prescribed by a specialist physician.
Mitigating factors included the lack of artifice or sophistication in the drawing of the prescription and its presentation to the pharmacist, in that Ms Gurrin didn't invent an animal name or species, or any kind of elaboration or backstory when challenged by the pharmacist on the prescription.
In addition, there was no financial or other personal gain, it was a single isolated incident, it was a spur of the moment decision without reflection, no harm was caused or risked to any animal, Ms Gurrin had a long and previously unblemished career and lastly she showed insight into the offence.
The committee also took into account the character testimonials which showed Ms Gurrin not only to be an exceptional vet, but a dedicated professional who had nurtured a very strong team, and someone who is held in extraordinarily high regard by both her clients and colleagues.
There were no aggravating factors.
The Committee considered that the case was too serious to take no further action, but that there was no ongoing danger to the public or risk to animal health.
Kathryn Peaty, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee has reached the conclusion that it is appropriate to impose a reprimand and a warning in this case.
"It would serve no purpose to impose a more severe sanction of a suspension and deprive Dr Gurrin’s clients of her valuable service and to deprive Dr Gurrin of the opportunity to practise for however short a time.
"The Committee considered that it is right to recognise that this misconduct was an aberration in a fine career, which is not characteristic of this veterinary surgeon and which happened when she was off her guard and in circumstances when she was mistakenly trying to help another in what she thought was a safe way.
“The Committee therefore decided, in the particular circumstance of this case, to impose a reprimand and warning on the basis that it would be proportionate in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.”
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vet nurses.